30:1102(121)AR - Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker AFB, OK and AFGE Local 916 -- 1988 FLRAdec AR

[ v30 p1102 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:

 30 FLRA NO. 121
 30 FLRA 1102

 28 JAN 1988






Case No. O-AR-1446


I. Statement of the Case

     This matter is before the Authority on an exception to the
award of Arbitrator I.B. Helburn filed by the Union under section
7122 (a) of the Federal Service Labor - Management Relations
Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Rules and
Regulations. The Arbitrator denied the grievant's request for
overtime pay, finding that the Agency did not violate the
parties' agreement or applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
For the reasons stated below, the Union's exception is denied.

II. Background and Arbitrator's Award

     The grievant, a warehouse worker, had been identified since
July 1986 as medically disabled because of back problems. Medical
restrictions regarding lifting, pushing and pulling heavy items,
and prolonged standing or repeated bending limited his work
assignments. On July 7, 1987, the grievant was in an auto
accident. On July 8, his back stiffened and he went to "base
medical." He returned to work with an administrative permit which
stated that he was capable of resuming limited duties and was on
sedentary duty for 1 day. The permit also stated that the
grievant was to be rechecked on July 9.

     On July 8, the grievant's supervisor received instructions
to run an overtime roster for July 11 for the  "overpak"
line. The grievant had not worked the warehouse's "overpak" line
in the past year. The grievant asked for overtime, but was marked
"lacks ability" because he was restricted to sedentary duty at
the time. The sedentary restriction was lifted the following day,
July 9, but the supervisor did not allow the grievant the
overtime because the roster had been run. The grievant sought
overtime pay for the 8 hours he thought he should have worked on
July 11. The Arbitrator denied the grievance, finding that the
Agency did not violate the parties' agreement or applicable laws,
rules, and regulations.

III. Discussion

     As its exception, the Union contends that (1) the Agency did
not follow its regulations; (2) the Arbitrator's award is
inconsistent with applicable agreement provisions regarding
arbitration and overtime; and (3) violates the U.S.

     We conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the
Arbitrator's award is deficient on any of the grounds set forth
in section 7122(a) of the Statute; that is, that the award is
contrary to any law, rule, or regulation or that the award is
deficient on other grounds similar to those applied by Federal
courts in private sector labor relations cases. See, for example,
Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma and American Federation of Government Employees, Local
916, AFL - CIO, 30  FLRA  No. 61 (1987) (exceptions which merely
attempt to relitigate the merits of a grievance and constitute
nothing more than disagreement with an arbitrator's
interpretation of an agreement and reasoning and conclusions
provide no basis for finding an award deficient); and Air Force
Space Division, Los Angeles Air Force Station, California and
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL - CIO, Local
2429, 24 FLRA  516 (1986) (the Authority, like the Federal
courts, will accord an arbitrator's formulation of the issue
submitted in the absence of a stipulation the same substantial
deference accorded an arbitrator's interpretation of the
collective bargaining agreement).

     Accordingly, the union's exception is denied.

     Issued, Washington, D.C., January 28, 1988.

     Jerry L. Calhoun, Chairman

     Jean Mckee, Member